Re: kernel-patch-amd64
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 10:48:10PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 07:40:49PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 03:32:55PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > Its also quite off the mark for amd64. The last kerel version had a 0 Byte
> > > patch for amd64 and only the current one has some patches in there to
> > > fix recent bugs.
> >
> > So what exact problems does the patch you propose solve? Which systems
> > don't boot/corrupt data/start nuclear wars without it? Do you
> > understand what exactly the patch does?
>
> Well, Christoph, i have trouble understanding all this religiuous anti
> patch problem. As in the case of the Marvell driver, what is the problem
> in having the patch as is available to debian/unstable users, _WHILE_ we
> are working on cleaning the situation ? Also, again if the last kernel
> version (2.6.6) had a obyte patch, and the current one (2.6.7) has only
> bug fixes, it is more than probable that those patches will also be
> submitted upstream pretty soon.
If someone (in this case Christoph and Viro) isn't around continually
trying to get people to submit upstream, the users lose out because the
patch(es) never get submitted and rot. Or it just keeps getting bigger and
bigger and never gets reviewed.
In the amd64 case, I haven't seen anyone point out what kernel.org 2.6.7 is
missing that the big amd64 patch misses.
If we are going to talk about broken bad user experiences we should talk
about why the keyspan drivers are built as modules but don't seem to
have firmware loader support.
Reply to: